|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:bearded sadist mods
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:33 |
|
|
# ? Apr 25, 2024 13:08 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:creates jobs for bearded sadists lol
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:40 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:creates jobs for bearded masochists
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:46 |
|
also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns http://community.arm.com/groups/arm-mali-graphics/blog/2014/08/14/mali-x11-vs-wayland-at-siggraph-2014 gnome's wayland support still isn't usable though
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:46 |
|
Mr Dog posted:also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns gnome 3 still isn't usable, so no big loss.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:47 |
|
srsly suspdish, if you are privy to market research or stats or anything, which percentage of fedora users used gnome 3?
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:50 |
|
pram posted:linux is a kernel my friend, a part of the GNU operating ssytem, which is comprised of many different open source components with contributions from members around the globe!! immersion ruined, people who sperg out about GNU don't say "open source"
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:54 |
|
here's Linux on my desktop
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 23:57 |
|
Mr Dog posted:also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns i don't care how much objectively superior it may be as a technology, I want nothing to do with it. if hitler handed you an amazing new video stack, would you use it? of course you wouldn't, because new things are bad.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:10 |
|
wayland sounds really cool but i don't anticipate using it until like 2025
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:10 |
|
Sniep posted:holy poo poo look at all those words in 28pt font that im not going to read ya wtf is goin on there
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:16 |
|
here u go Shall we fork Debian™? :^| debianfork Who are you?! We are Veteran Unix Admins and we are concerned about what is happening to Debian GNU/Linux to the point of considering a fork of the project. And why would you do that? Some of us are upstream developers, some professional sysadmins: we are all concerned peers interacting with Debian and derivatives on a daily basis. We don't want to be forced to use systemd in substitution to the traditional UNIX sysvinit init, because systemd betrays the UNIX philosophy. We contemplate adopting more recent alternatives to sysvinit, but not those undermining the basic design principles of "do one thing and do it well" with a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled binaries and opaque logs. Are there better solutions than forking? Yes: vote Ian Jackson's proposal to preserve freedom of choice of init systems. Then make sure sysvinit stays the default for now, systemd can be optional. Debian leaders can go on evaluating more init systems, just not impose one that ignores the needs of most of its users. Why don't you do that yourselves? We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us have the possibility to interact with Debian on a voluntary basis. Now we do what we can, hoping our concerns will be heard by those who can cast a vote about it. [edit/clarification] Since this seems to be one of the most prominent critiques, we'd like to clarify this point. With lack of possibility we refer to our capacity to be involved in a complex bureaucratic system like the one governing Debian. While we respect this way of working, we think that our time may be better invested in new directions, also according to our expertise. Is really all this fuss necessary? To quote Ian Jackson: "This resolution is not only important within Debian, and not only for jessie (its next release). It is also important feedback for upstreams, and our peer distros and downstreams". Why is this happening in your opinion? The current leadership of the project is heavily influenced by GNOME developers and too much inclined to consider desktop needs as crucial to the project, despite the fact that the majority of Debian users are tech-savvy system administrators. Moreover Debian today is haunted by the tendency to betray its own mandate, a base principle of the Free Software movement: put the user's rights first. What is happening now instead is that through a so called "do-ocracy" developers and package maintainers are imposing their choices on users. Can you articulate your critique to systemd? To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, we see systemd being very prone to mission creep and bloat and likely to turn into a nasty hairball over the longer term. We like controlling the startup of the system with shell scripts that are readable, because readability grants a certain level of power and consciousness for those among us who are literate, and we believe that centralizing control services, sockets, devices, mounts, etc., all within one daemon is a slap in the face of the UNIX philosophy. A timely reply by some people willing to use systemd is visible at forkfedora.org. This page is useful to highlight a fundamental difference: systemd may simplify the task of configuring init, but it does so by enforcing an increasingly opaque approach to the init procedure. In systemd sure it appears easier: one can tweak a few variables and have all the rest handled by a big binary system that is way bigger than sysvinit. It can be said that the security model of systemd relies much more on developers and package maintainers and much less on system administrators. Again please consider that, as Debian users, we are simply asking not to be forced into this model and, taking into account the CTTE vote on the issue was almost draw, we believe its execution should be way more attentive in listening to what many users are asking: freedom of choice, starting from what we have. How long are your beards? This is not a beard contest, rest assured the furry ones among us are not sheep. To sum it up? If systemd will be substituting sysvinit in Debian, we will fork the project and create a new distro. We hope this won't be necessary, but we are well prepared for it. If you like to follow how things evolve in Debian, here is the page about the General Resolution: init system coupling. We need to talk. Sure, write an email to VUA@debianfork.org. Are you guys alone in this? Not at all, there are more protests against the imposition of systemd on users. This article is a good introduction to the issue at hand: Systemd: Harbinger of the Linux apocalypse. There is the boycott systemd website providing several references. Then there is the "systemd fork" called uselessd with some good points and lots of lulz. An exit strategy is being elaborated at The World After Systemd The wikipedia page lists also some critiques in its systemd reception section. With our protest we intend to represent the discontent of Debian users, because that's who we are. We intend to keep using Debian on our servers, or a fork if necessary. Others might have other goals, but we all share a common problem: systemd being imposed on us. Thanks for doing this. How can I help? Cheers. You can help by talking to fellow Debian developers and convince them of how wrong is to betray a very big and relevant userbase by listening to desktop needs. Also it can be helpful to monitor and update the Wikipedia page about systemd (to keep it objective, not to vandalize it! we love Wikipedia <3) If you like to support this effort financially: good to let us know, but hold your horses for now as it may not be needed. To tip the hat please spare some change for Dyne.org the non-profit organization hosting this website. How are people reacting to your protest? Here below some of the messages we are receiving. If you write us please consider we may quote you anonymously, unless you specify not to. We will keep your email private and later send you a notice about our next steps. I'm with you guys in the way that systemd is not the way forward. But I do not think that sysvinit is the way forward either. Maybe another init system? Like GNU DMD? I know its still pretty immature, but I think it's a good init system. I don't think sysvinit is ever going to make a comeback. And forking Debian? That's a very hard feat. Debian is the biggest Linux distro to date with hundreds of developers and at least 10 times as much users. And you'll have to change a lot of things from upstream. Even Ubuntu decided to use systemd instead of having to change the base init to upstart. Perhaps going to Slackware instead? That's what I use. Its very UNIX like. If that's what you strive for. Thank you so much for this. I've been using Debian since Hamm and this systemd nonsense has me ready to jump ship. I don't know who is behind that email, but sincerely, thank you for doing this. I'm an UNIX/Linux sysadmin for nearly 20 years, I am nowadays dealing with a 5k servers which consists of nearny 90% debian systems. I've been a long time opponent to systemd, first because I read the code (thing that too few of that crap's zealots do), and ultimately because I tried it. That thing is a desktop toy, and even then, it has failed me on 50% of the cases. Its very nature is an abomination to UNIX principles and me and my team, colleagues, friends on the sysadmin field are *VERY* worried (to say the least) on what's coming. Please keep that movement going, make it strong, and if you want a hand, count me in. Again, thank you. I've been using runit as my init system on debian wheezy/jessie for a while now and it works pretty well. glad to see the effort though on debianfork.org . cool. Do you realize that there's already more than 150 Debian derivative? Instead of doing one more, you're better off helping one of the already existing derivatives. Writing "fork" is the joke part, since that would only be a derivative, unless every Debian Developer follows you, which will *not* happen. Also, instead of just writing words on the internet, wouldn't you think that helping some of the systemd alternative be a lot more productive? FYI, I don't like systemd either. And I've been maintaining OpenRC in Debian, and trying to push for it to work on as many arch as possible. Though I currently don't have the time for it (for professional and personal reasons), and some others are a bit taking over the work, but it's not going as fast as it should. Some help would be awesome, and would help a way better than writing funny text on the net. I will support you guys with code if the fork goes ahead. But kindly think of another name. Why don't you guys help out with Debian LTS? No systemd there, and they need help at the moment. I'm in, at least in general. "because readability grants a certain level of power and consciousness for those among us who are literate" I'd edit that to add that systemd is for software devs, but sysvinit is for sysadmins. Sysadmins can debug shell scripts, but not necessarily debug and recompile systemd, which will of course be necessary in the course of admin duties. Excessive product tying and complication for the sake of complication takes away the ability of admins to administer, which is highly counter productive. The response from the systemd astroturfers is invariably along the lines of software, especially our software, will never have bugs (LOL) "Pure Debian by Veteran Unix Admins." any other name has to be better than that. At least try not to violate trademarks by putting in (tm). You missed an excellent lack of freedom argument. There will be only one way to do it and it will be mandatory and all else will be forbidden and only one guy gets to decide. Intentional incompatibility is a pretty screwed up way to go thru life. It does not help that most of the new features and abilities of systemd appear totally useless. If one mp3 player was useless and awful, that would be OK, unless the inquisition extinguished all other mp3 players... that would suck. Although this is whats being done with systemd. And the embrace extend extinguish issue. If submarine software patents sink apache (unlikely, but possible) then I don't really care although the emergency conversion to nginx might be a PITA for a day. When the one and only init system to bind them all is subverted either by submarine patent or security holes then the temporary work around will be to install the xyz package to switch to ... well I guess it'll be impossible and I'd have to switch to freebsd. There is a cost - benefit ratio issue. Most of what systemd is capable of doing is unfortunately completely useless and irrelevant in comparison to what is being lost WRT to ease of debugging and reliability and security and freedom. If the costs were low/zero, the useless features it provides would likely still not be worth it, but at least the ratio would make it less awful. To some extent the whole situation is a farce. You've got software devs deciding what desktop users that don't exist want, while ignoring actual current desktop users, and they're re-applying that "successful" (LOL) development model to screw over sysadmins, and we're not subject to being told what we want by non-admins. Its a very arrogant business model. If/when you start publishing work for your fork Can you see if it can be documented in a way those of us in the redhat world could take advantage of it? We have the same problem and concerns, well at least the could *nix admin in our shop. Myself included. We are also considering looking at alternatives and we all have used debian in the past and most use ubuntu for desktop (there is always that one mandrake guy) so I will be keeping an eye on this project as well. Whatever the outcome you have my support ! Using various Unices since System V on an ICL Clan 4, and as long-time BSD, Slackware and Debian user, I just don’t want systemd imposed on me, whatever the purpose. Whether it’s total crap, a good idea or a mix of both, this has to be *optional* and surely not a default. I want to keep my servers and embedded systems bloat-free with only their intended software sets installed. Why don’t *they* fork Debian and do whatever they want ? I like Debian the way it is (was) like a good grilled steak with nothing superfluous added, no fancy sauce. Thank you for your efforts ! I've been on Linux for over 15 years, I'm also a contributor in Fedora and author of NetworkManager-ssh (SSH plugin for Network manager). I'm a sort of a cross between a sysadmin and developer, currently doing both. I'm predominantly a Fedora user (and contributor) and am thinking recently about forsaking Fedora in favour of something without systemd (was thinking PCBSD). I've been around Linux for a while and understand the core philosophy behind it and how systemd just betrays all of that. I actually had an argument with Mr. Pottering on the Fedora-dev list about having /var/log/messages having a binary format. When log files in linux will not be plain text - it'll be the end in my opinion. needless to say Pottering didn't agree with me and tried to shut me up. Pottering somehow managed to push systemd quite far in Fedora and at the moment I'm in absorption mode trying to digest WTF happened to my Fedora with systemd. Horrow show. If this fork goes forward, I promise to try and do my best to contriube as much as possible. I'm good with packaging and shell, I believe I will be able to help. I think you guys hit the nail on the head with your web page and you have my full support. Lets not let our voice be silenced As a veteran (20+ years; Solaris, HP-UX, RHEL, Debian) sysadmin who prefers Debian over everything for use on about 40 GUIless servers, it's either this (a fork away from systemd) or I move away from Debian altogether. Many thanks for the effort here, while it's not a big thing to replace systemd on jessie/sid installation with sysvinit, it's not easy to create an installer image which installs the OS without systemd. I made an image which you can find on http://without-systemd.org/debian-jessie/ The big problem is tasksel, tasksell will install all Packages with the priorities required, important and standard. Unfortunately systemd has the priority importand and will be installed again, if you select "standard system utilities" in tasksel, to fix that, i would have to create my own Debian repository :-( I hope for a solution without a fork. But if you need help with forking, please contact me. I support your idea of forking Debian to exclude systemd and its multitude of tentacles. Please follow through. Also, please make available means by which us mere users (though I've got kernel-hacking and systems-architecture ambitions myself) may participate in an effective way. As I see it, the simplest way to fork Debian as of october 2014 would entail taking a full-system snapshot (per package versions), available from snapshot.d.o, from a time before systemd dependencies were introduced, and then adding on top any updates that didn't add such. This would re-use nearly all mainline Debian effort and require only porting of e.g. eudev from other systemd-less distributions. Of course GNOME would have to go; fortunately there is MATE. Thanks for doing this. I run four Debian servers in production, three of which are connected to an IRC network. Gnome remains the default DE on Debian for accessibility reasons, so it's obvious they have the monopoly of votes in favor of systemd. Large companies like Red Hat are also backing destroying the UNIX-philosophies. Once I heard Debian would be making the switch to systemd, I've been slowly migrating all Debian servers over to OpenBSD over the impending death of Debian. There's still much that leaves me missing Debian, most importantly the large amount of different packages that are not available in OpenBSD and would take lots of effort to port over. I have been worried about systemd colonizing all the linux distros for a long time and it's really happening. I want users to retain freedom to use the init system they choose rather than being locked in. The debian mailing list vote about whether to switch to systemd was atrocious, in no way did it come to a consensus but they still forced this upon us? This was the reason I quit using debian. If you look around there are very few remaining distros that aren't getting taken over by systemd! Your project is a good idea and I wish you the best. Should set up a page collecting signatures I'd add mine in a heartbeat. It would make an interesting list of people. Does it have to come to this? I get the feeling that there is a tsunami of opposition to systemd, and most of it seems to be from very knowledgeable guys. What I hear about systemd is very worrying, how is it that Debian could get to the brink of a fundamental fork over something that so many people think is Absolutely Wrong? Who is in charge here, and what are they thinking? I like the idea of Debian not being tied to systemd - whether that comes around through voting or forking seems immaterial. That said it's too late for me; the very fact that systemd is a likely prospect has motivated me to jump ship to FreeBSD. I'm already using it on my personal laptop, and will be migrating all my machines over to it shortly. So, something to consider: some long-time (since 1995, in my case!) Linux users have already voted with their feet. The Debian team shouldn't necessarily take silence as consent, as the most deeply disaffected users may already have left. In fact, a long-term FreeBSD user I know says there's been a spike of interest on the BSD lists since systemd was announced. I suspect I'm far from alone in having already departed. I’d really appreciate if you work tightly on something that could possibly remove bad consequences of systemd’s “brute spellforce” integration in major distros by GNOME’s and RedHat’s employees. My only warning to you will be that I can predict much of major distros supporters are not very educated about UNIX philosophy and related things and that way RH and GNOME will easily convince them by great masses splitting UNIX and GNU/Linux popularity below the edge of elite again. You need very strong voluntary public relations supporting anti-systemd tendencies and not only coders of strong mind. Thanks guys for speaking up and saving the freedom to admin one of the few fully open distros. SysV Init ist he only reasonable thing at the moment from a security point of view, Systemd is a code maintainance nightmare waiting to come... If they want to use it for a desktop-only distribution, then they should make a flavour of it, along with all the non-X-Windows Destop stuff (Wayland, Mir). This is how it should be done - it's a pity the rocklinux distribution and its fork t2-project are both on hold lacking devs. Your website is wonderful, and exactly the message that needs to be going out in these trying times. I've been using Debian on my servers and intermittently on my personal machines for about 6 years now, through thick and thin, and the troubling wind of systemd is the only thing that has made me even consider switching away. The binary journals are absolutely evil, to say nothing of the awful desecration of the Unix philosophy. Keep fighting the good fight! Greetings, and thanks for your website and thoughts. Systemd is one thing, but what about dbus? Some people like to have notifications pop up, for example when a Handbrake transcoding process is done. A systemd-free dbus could support a lot of existing packages without pulling in systemd. According the apt-cache showpkg, 84 packages depend on dbus There are 1520 commits in dbus since systemd support went in in 2010. Another approach would be to fork at the *package level familiar apps and libraries, turning off systemd or dbus compile options, to create e.g. audacity-lean instead of audacity. Of course, a complete fork would involve enormous manpower, people power When I tried to voice my concerns on "Arch" Forums a couple years ago, regarding my shock to what I called "the redhatization of Arch" -they really didn't give a poo poo, to put it mildly. I realize Arch Forums are rough on their Users, but I never realized just how "Peotter-ized" they had become. People talk about jumping the Debian ship if Debian goes full-bore systemd, the problem is there is almost nowhere to go now. ? Redhat, Arch, ... they and ALL their derivative distro's are now systemd, and systemd only -with NO optional init's whatsoever. -no choice. -or atleast, not easy ones, and definitely not without a lotta work, and once dhcpd falls prey to systemd, well, it'll be all over -except for the crying. If Debian goes, and it will, then there will be NO ONE left. So yes, I fully support you guys if you have to fork a systemd-free Debian, then so be it. I'm on your side. I blame IBM/Redhat for this entire systemd-controlling nightmare. IBM/Redhat/Intel/Gnome/Wayland ..., with Intel pushing for Wayland, ..., and guess what everything will be built around ? and I ain't just talkin 'bout pulseaudio here -lol. Systemd is an octopus with mammoth contolling entanglements, getting more powerful with each day. I surely hope this "fork" of Debian can become a future-proof survival effort against the likes of this (juggernaut)-systemd-Linux ? I am not an advanced Programmer, I'm just an ex-Sysadmin. I was there when Solaris 10 moved to "SMF" as their "rc" scripts replacements,... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Management_Facility However, the way Solaris did it was the "right" way for them, whereas to me, Systemd, as it is in Linux, is so wrong, and much much worse. SystmeD is a basic rip-off of that. SystemD represents the evil "Windopwsization" of Linux. I mean, for god sakes, what was so wrong about using "OpenRC" ?!, atleast that drat thing is "portable". And finally, that's the other reason I support your efforts here. I use OpenBSD, and FreeBSD regularly as well, and I believe the ease of "portability" is also very important across Linux <-> BSD's, wherever possible. Thank you for your intention to fork Debian when systemd becomes mandatory and the current poll is lost. I'm using Debian as a server system for about 15 years now and I'm very much used to administering sysvinit-scripts and I like them and I like the robustness of this system. You have my support for your idea! I am a programmer and part-time system administrator. I, too, have been considering whether or not a fork (given enough support) would be possible if Debian choose systemd exclusively. It is reassuring to see that others are thinking along the same lines. If the fork does need to go ahead, I would be very willing to assist. I am sysadmin and I am using Debian for servers since version 2.0/Hamm. I don't like the direction of the Debian and most of my servers at the moment are still on Squeeze and I am not planning to upgrade them ever because of systemd crap. I am using 'runit' at the moment for keeping services up and running (was using daemontools before) and I want to see this system as an option for replacing init/systemd. My opinion -> FORK IT! I am familiar with debian package system and I will volunteer for package maintainer of the new fork of Debian if necesery. Thanks for more publicity about keeping alternatives to systemd in Debian. There's another small group of people who collects data about running Linux with proper init systems: http://the-world-after-systemd.ungleich.ch/ You may be also interested in the prevent-systemd-* packages in the APT repository at http://users.unixforge.de/~tglaser/debs/debidx.htm I am one of those GNU/Linux users who chose to use it to avoid software imposition from above. With systemd I am experiencing the same blow, and it reminds me of the time, when changes in the OS took place following a direction I disliked as it didn't cater for the needs of someone like me. systemd will remove my freedom to modify the system the way I want it to be. It is a blow to software transparency and it will demotivate anyone choosing GNU/Linux to use a different OS with a different philosophy. Although, I am not formally qualified as a coder, I do it as a passtime. I learnt on my own and can use C++, C and Object Pascal. Lately, I have settled myself to using C++ although using C is a not inaccessible to me with some extra effort. First i would like to say that i am not against your idea. If you want to fork, just do it.Make your own distro. Second, you should consider to actively participate in things that matter and not just go for publicity like a good politician.Systemd was voted, not enforced and that procedure has a name.Democracy. Third you are not believable when you say you want alternative init systems. Because you don't care what is best but what touches your personal feelings. By the way do you have any idea what resources it needs for such a thing? But of course you do not have the time to participate, so how would you know?Ask Ubuntu. Last let me say that in 2014 we need to think how to progress the Linux ecosystem (not UNIX system} and there is no philosophy behind it, it's not the meaning of life.There are morale issues on how technology is used and that is why we care how it is build, that is why we support open source.Engineering is just a skill and if you disagree with what someone builds just do what you think is better. Thank you for this initiative, though i've only cross-read the counter-arguments they do appear valid and sufficiently substantiated by personal experience when it comes to such convoluted "one-in-all solutions" It is hard to believe an established company such as Red Hat is actually advocating it's use. Recently i've also learned about musl-libc which does seem to be a viable alternative for future system growth. At least in spirit and to some extent in proof already, not a perfect drop-in but the potential does seem obvious. Debian is a META-OS, i was there on fidonet when it took shape and the idea has proven visionary in many ways. Choosing for a mono-init-system approach would make it just another distro. Though by now it could probably need some trimming or reorganisation in some places, overall quality seems to have degraded a bit here and there. It is due time for a wiki dedicated to the design of a new init system, a massive community influenced design of such importance would prove significant in many ways. For non-critical systems systemd will have it's benefits but the "feel" is "awkward" even from an operational perspective. Let's just not fall into another flamewar based on fear and prejudices on both sides, maybe the authors of systemd are forthcomming in adapting to the community criticism and a win-win can be achieved. A wonderful idea. It would send a message that few could ignore that systemd is a serious power grab and an unwelcome one at that. I'm not a coder, or a sysadmin, just a happy Linux user of some 12 years. It was the philosophy behind Linux that attracted me and I see that philosophy now almost entirely sidelined and ridiculed, partially by the "our convenience is more import than your stupid philosophy" distros and also by the systemd bullies. So yes, as a user and long time fan - please fork Debian and give us back the Linux we love so much. Just to say I fully support your movement. There's only so much poo poo an innit system can do until it becomes svchost.exe. Hi folks, I want to thank you in the first place, for what you are doing!! I am in the same situation like you are, and almost all the professionals out there!! I am a sysadmin for some time now(before I was a programmer only), and I thought I was alone on this problem... I run a small park of servers(more or less 400 servers), for high availability... I prefere debian off course, but now I am in a difficult situation...because systemd will be banned in my systems, I DOENS`T ALLOW SYSTEMD HERE!!!! Systemd doesn't allow us to control our process's in the same way that sysvinit does!!! I want control, and a simple control, not some binaries that I don't know exactly how they work underneath! Systemd seem to be simple at the beginning, but when you want to adapt some software, to automate him, or to change the way it work on the system...ITS a NIGHTMARE!!! Systemd is only good for desktop's ...NOT for mine, thanks!! I doesn't care of speed in the boot process of my systems, because I boot them ONE Time in at least 2-5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And my desktop/laptop's I boot them almost of the time, one time only a day!!! RUNLEVELS...what?? ABOMINATION what they have created , ABOMINATION!!!!! RunLEVELS are one of the tons of beautiful things of Unix like systems. Runlevels should be preserved at ANY cost!!! When I saw it I realized that the guys beguind systemd seem's to be kids...that's the only answer...sorry for my conclusion, but I think that not even 1 person with a minimal knowledge an respect for the Unix like culture, exist's there!! How a programmer has the guts to kill Runlevels, or at least remove from the user the chance to use them explicitly!? yes I Agree, when a attacker gains access to root, its a problem, because the logs are exposed...and in this I agree that are some work to do, but what they have done is so bad that I just can't accept it!! Well, I write this email, that ends up being a rant, but the goal is to supportyour actions towards this degrading situation, and if the Debian committee doesn't care, encourage you guys to continue fighting this problem that seems to stole the, freedom and power, we have on our beloved Debian! If you want readable configuration, that is possible (even in systemd), since even relational databases can be implemented in plain text. That said, perhaps a footnote about critical efficiencies might moot this minor point. It's good to know that we're not alone and there are a lot more people fighting against the cancerD infection on Debian/Linux. You have my full support. I'm a "desktop user"; I administrate just a single personal server and so I don't really consider myself "a veteran unix admin". I wholeheartedly applaud your initiative in doing this. Thank you. I agree with you about the importance of UNIX philosophy, I think the GNU/Linux is taking a bad track and I fear this. Then what do you think about replace GNU things like GCC, GDB and binutils (the toolchain) for Clang, LLDB and LLVM? Besides, GNU is Not Unix, then we cannot expect of them some attitude for bloated things like systemd. Bash had a critical bug because it is bloated, luckily the Debian default shell is dash. LLVM is more modular than GCC, so I think it doesn't hurt UNIX philosophy and never will. And what about GNOME? I like it and I use it, now I'm using Gnome 3.12 on my FreeBSD, could you build GNOME with no systemd? The recent discussions surrounding 'systemd' and 'sysvinit' have brought the "one thing done well" philosophy under renewed consideration. I would like us to consider the value of this philosophy in another situation -- Linux™ distributions. Each week I see new distributions, each packaged to suit the preferences of yet another end-user community. Someone prefers a specific Desktop Environment. Someone else wants something different. Someone wants a specific initialization suite. Someone else wants something different. This diversity of preferences is a major strength of the Linux universe.[1] First, my humble definition of a Linux distribution. "A distribution is a packaged collection of software components: a kernel, drivers and modules, libraries, utilities, user interface, applications and so on." Why would anyone create a packaged collection of components? One motive might be a belief that their collection has benefits not offered by existing collections. Sadly, I don't hear much discussion about the "one thing done well" aspects of these collections. As a community, there is a tendency to treat a distribution as a monolith, but that is far from the case. Consider "the kernel," "drivers" and "modules." [I call this the kernel suite.] As a collection, it is difficult to describe "one thing" that the suite needs to "do well." I'll try: The kernel suite has the task of enabling the workstation hardware such that multiple utilities and applications can be installed, configured and run to deliver their designed benefits to end-users. Notice that I use very few words to describe the "one thing done well." Such a brief statement cannot be a specification or even a statement of requirements. However, these brief statements are crucial to any "one thing done well" evaluation. When I look at software suites and seek their description of "one thing done well" I usually find large documents. What would you write as a description for a software suite such as 'systemd' 'upstart' or 'sysvinit'? Let's consider the problem space in parts. * Once the kernel is loaded and running with a suitable set of drivers and modules, we are able to load and start a process-one executable to take over the activation of utilities, applications and such. CHECK -- We can do this and do it well. * Process-one needs to read configuration details and activate those utilities, applications and such. CHECK -- We can do this and do it well. * 'sysvinit' accomplishes the above in a handy way. This is especially true for workstations with a mostly static complement of utilities and applications. For workstations with a dynamic complement, there are some difficulties. Clearly beneficial for servers ... not so much for laptops. * 'systemd' does the job of handling the dynamic deployment of utilities and applications by responding to discovery events. Many of these same events happen during a cold start and so systemd also handles the initial deployment. Herein lies one possible source of confusion and conflict.Clearly beneficial for laptops ... not so much for servers. Given that "the static case" and "the dynamic case" are two things, this appears to violate the "one thing done well" philosophy. When coupled with a large list of dependencies on supporting libraries and utilities, and we have a large and complex subsystem. The Linux universe has other large, complex subsystems -- web servers, email servers, database managers, etc. These don't generate the sort of divisive language found in the 'systemd' discussion. I seem to remember that they used to until enough time and effort allowed the benefits and liabilities to shake out and sound software engineering to refactor and otherwise address complexities of the early editions. --- [1] I use "universe" in the astronomical and cosmological sense rather than as an indicator of linux package availability made popular by certain distribution publishers. People still focus on the wrong thing with this systemd debate. All the arguments are just minor things too me. This is what is particularly wrong with the whole thing: There is a debate whether to replace legacy init-systems. It is a good debate, and imho a new init system is very due. What should have been done (*): 1.) define interfaces/apis for a new init system by the linux community/process 2.) standardaize these interface 3.) have somebody provide a reference implementation and reference-test-suite (an init-system is missing critical, I cannot debug umteenth servers when they fail initing) what has been done: 1.) a reference implementation has been pooped into existence with interfaces/apis 'designed' on the fly 2.) this mix of standards/implemention has then been pushed and force-fed to the community 3.) now the community is pissed The discussion about whether or not systemd must be used is moot. If standards exist, systemd can be replaced. If not, like we have now, it cannot. So, stop the stupid debate, and really get down to solving this problem (see *). Hi. I'm a professional Unix and Linux systems admin. I work at Magellan Healthcare in the operations department. My title is Senior System Administrator. I've been doing this job at various places of employment for 19 years. I've been involved with Unix since 1988. I have a beard. It is quite gray. Please keep me in the loop on the Debian fork. I will help preserve our way of life if I can. debianfork All information on this page is free to copy. This webpage is an independent communication promoted and managed by a group of Debian users, developers and admins and is not affiliated with the Debian project. Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:16 |
|
For twelve years you've been asking "Should we fork Debian?"
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:18 |
|
im the accrual of veterancy
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:22 |
|
quote:To quote Ian Jackson: Also quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, Jesus gently caress
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:33 |
theadder posted:im the accrual of veterancy measured in neckbeard growth rings also lol that they lost the vote they want to have a Design Process for an init replacement sorry actual work > design committee, even for debian
|
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:34 |
|
quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue, quote:To paraphrase Eric S. Raymond on the issue,
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:42 |
|
lol
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:58 |
|
My title is Senior System Administrator. I've been doing this job at various places of employment for 19 years. I've been involved with Unix since 1988. I have a beard. It is quite gray.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 00:58 |
|
pram posted:here u go this but ironically
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 01:17 |
|
when someone says "that goes against the Unix philosophy" give him a lollipop
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 01:19 |
|
pram posted:For twelve years you've been asking "Should we fork Debian?"
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 01:20 |
|
personally i would rather not see systemd hegemony happen but i've accepted that it will because the systemd opposition is filled with morons
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 01:27 |
|
Mr Dog posted:also i found another recent article about the multitudinous ways in which wayland owns How so? I've been using it as a day to day desktop for a few weeks now, and it works quite well.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 01:54 |
|
keyvin posted:srsly suspdish, if you are privy to market research or stats or anything, which percentage of fedora users used gnome 3? I'd love to have any sort of data, but Fedora is broken and any attempt to discover how users are using the software we make is shut down with privacy concerns.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 01:57 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I'm asking because everybody seems to think that systemd doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy, but nobody has been able to tell me what that is, and why Linux follows it. We can recognize master signifiers by the way both senders and receivers of a message respond to them. Senders use them as the last word, the bottom line, the term that anchors, explains or justifies the claims or demands contained in the message. Receivers respond to master signifiers with a similar attitude: whereas other terms and the values and assumptions they bear may be challenged, master signifiers are simply accepted as having a value or validity that goes without saying.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 02:09 |
|
Gazpacho posted:A master signifier is any signifier that a subject has invested his or her identity in any signifier that the subject has identified with (or against) and that thus constitutes a powerful positive or negative value. Master signifiers are thus the factors that give the articulated system of signifiers that is, knowledge, belief, language purchase on a subject: they are what make a message meaningful. Lacan expresses this point by saying that master signifiers are what make a discourse readable. In conclusion, bitches be trippin
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 02:28 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I'd love to have any sort of data, but Fedora is broken and any attempt to discover how users are using the software we make is shut down with privacy concerns. do what debian does and do the popularity contest opt-in during install?
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 02:54 |
|
Debian has an opt-in cron job called "popularity-contest" which sends a list of your packages to the Debian servers once a week. It's remarkably broken and easily gamed for any sort of actual statistics, and as such it's considered just for fun and not really anything meaningful when talking about technical arguments.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 02:58 |
|
You have to install it on your servers manually, and it's not offered during installation, which means that people using Debian for real work never install it, and people using Debian to dick around with it sometimes do.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 03:00 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:You have to install it on your servers manually, and it's not offered during installation, which means that people using Debian for real work never install it, and people using Debian to dick around with it sometimes do. popcon uses the system mailer to post its results, but no non-beardlord has had a functional system mailer that can reach internet destinations since like 1993. i assume the data is a mixture of adverse selection problems and sample counts so small they couldn't be relevant even if they weren't garbage
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 03:11 |
|
btw popcon was still offered as a yes/no question during debian installation the last time i installed debian, despite the low odds of it functioning as intended i wonder how many systems out there have 1,000+ undelivered popcon emails sitting somewhere in the depths of /var/mail
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 03:13 |
Gazpacho posted:personally i would rather not see systemd hegemony happen but i've accepted that it will because the systemd opposition is filled with morons As a relatively casual observer one might be swayed by their bad faith arguments But there doesn't really appear to be any technical or policy or practical reason that could support the sysvinit position whatsoever, particularly where Debian's concerned
|
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 04:39 |
|
api call girl posted:But there doesn't really appear to be any technical or policy or practical reason that could support the sysvinit position whatsoever, particularly where Debian's concerned it's debian: choice is the default. you need an extremely persuasive case to deny the use of sysvinit. including systemd is a no-brainer. making systemd a default is a no-brainer. denying a substantial faction of sperglords their ancient stripped-down system, that part requires serious fuckin consideration
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 04:44 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:it's debian: choice is the default. you need an extremely persuasive case to deny the use of sysvinit. including systemd is a no-brainer. man, i dont know much about this system D but i kinda feel like i want it all up in my OS, forcefully if necessary. just ram it in there, put all the system D into MY system.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 04:56 |
|
I was going to make a joke about how critical system components like the kernel aren't a choice but then I remembered how god damned stupid Debian is.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 04:57 |
|
Debian/kFreeBSD
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 04:59 |
|
also Debian GNU/Hurd
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 05:01 |
|
it seems to be a standard argument for lean init systems to say that "the kernel requires nothing from pid 1 except to be a process collector of last resort therefore that is all it must ever do" there's never any thought of reading it the other way round, i.e. the kernel's special treatment of init, as long as it remains in place, constitutes a grant of responsibility for any feature that must hook into last-resort process collection to work correctly, and if this leads to bloat well maybe you should point the finger at the kernel and its unique treatment of this one process tl;dr software architecture is politics
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 05:21 |
|
|
# ? Apr 25, 2024 13:08 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Debian/kFreeBSD what's the k
|
# ? Nov 1, 2014 05:22 |